POSC 130 G - Research Paper [Sample ONLY! don't copy]

POSC 130 G - Research Paper [Sample ONLY! don't copy] -...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Critical Case Analyses: Hudson v. Michigan Introduction For centuries the debate of whether the American court system was a constrained court or a dynamic court has been continuously argued. Although both sides present convincing arguments there still has not been a conscious agreement on the issue. In this case study of the Supreme Court case Hudson v. Michigan it can been seen that the dynamic v. constraint court debate is very much alive in this case. Although the case itself shows that the court was able to behave in a dynamic fashion on closer examination it can be seen that there were a great deal of constraining factors in the case. In the end it can be proven that the constraining factors for this case ultimately had no effect on the power of the Supreme Court and that the court was able to behave in a dynamic manner. The Debate As previously stated this paper presents an examination of a Supreme Court case and the dynamic and constraint factors existent in the case. However before any further analysis could be made of the case, one must have a rudimentary understanding of both the constraint and dynamic court view. Basically both views are a series of argument about the power that the judicial branch and its courts have on setting forth new public policies that address political and market failure. The two views are rooted in the idea of doctrinal, institutional, and cultural constraints and the extent of their abilities to keep the court from enacting policies. The two views have two different beliefs in the effectiveness that these factors have in limiting the power of the courts. Proponents for the constraint view argue that any one of these factors can easily restrain the power of the court, thus limiting the courts ability to make new policies and making the court “constrained.” Meanwhile proponents of the dynamic court believe in exactly the opposite of their constraint court counterparts and argue that these factors have no influence on the courts power. Thus leaving the court with the ability to easily set new policies and solve political and market failures, making the court “dynamic.”
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background Hudson v. Michigan was first argued in the Supreme Court on January 9, 2006 and then reargued on May 18, 2006 and finally decided on June 15, 2006. In this particular Supreme Court case, the main issued that was addressed by the court was whether Michigan’s law enforcement’s “knock-and-announce” entry method was a violation of the exclusionary rule, and if it was then should the evidence found by the entry method be classified as “questionable evidence” and not be allowed to used to convict criminals in court. The events of this case occurred during August of 1998, when seven Detroit officers searched the house of Brooker Hudson. The police officers had a valid warren to search Hudson’s home for firearms and drugs. “When they arrived at the front door, an officer shouted: ‘Police, search warrant.’ They paused for three to five seconds before one of the officers turned
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 05/08/2008 for the course POSC 130g taught by Professor Below during the Fall '06 term at USC.

Page1 / 11

POSC 130 G - Research Paper [Sample ONLY! don't copy] -...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online